The National Prohibition Act of 1920

The Constitution of the United States gave the light of Amendment 18 on December 18, 1917, which came into action as the National Prohibition Act of 1920. The prohibition was designed to not allow the manufacture, sale and possession of alcohol, in which big number, included beer and wine. This amendment was repealed with the approval of amendment 21 to the constitution, allowing the possession of alcohol in the United States.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified

Proficient in: Alcohol

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

In other words, amendment 21 included the restored rights of citizens restricted by amendment 18, which was also the first and only amendment repealed by the Constitution, and now allowed people to own, sell, and buy their own alcohol.

Alcohol itself was seen to be destructive towards families, but not only was the aspect of family in touch, other types of companies that believed in non-alcoholism thought that this would reduce accidents caused in the workplace and increase productivity.

While all this was hoped to happen, The ban not only failed in its promises to provide a solution to poverty, crime, violence and other disturbances during the 20th century, but actually increased and created additional social problems.

There are many contributions to the approval of the 21st amendment, although the main reason for repealing the ban was a crime. Those who were drinkers were just going to find ingenious ways to provide themselves with alcohol, so there was no much use for this prohibition other than to cause more problems. Franklin D. Roosevelt came into office, which led to the resolution of the prohibition in 1933.

I believe that the idea behind the prohibition had a greater intent to protect the citizens at the time, but the cons would only overweigh the pros of the allowing of alcohol in the United States. Also, just as with any substance considered a drug in the United States today, how can you truly take away from a citizen who’s determined to find a way to get what they want, especially with a government whose idea is revolved around capitalism. It also didn’t make sense to take away and prohibit a money making machine from making alcohol during the great depression, Just imagine the amount of jobs it would be able to create.

If you take away alcohol how can you allow the use of of even more dangerous drugs? In my eyes, the prohibition also allowed for other movements to progress with the upcoming legality of cannabis in certain states, and even make an impact on a federal level. I think the government is starting like the idea of legalizing cannabis in the United States. Is it arguable to say that the government, before anything else, is just another business? Licencing and tax fees skyrocket just to have the permission of any controlled substance out there. It sure wouldn’t hurt our economy to allow the creation of business, just how it happened with alcohol, and how it has been occurring with pharmaceutical and tobacco companies.

In my opinion, the prohibition was just a way to test the waters for substance control, whose intent was not a bad one at all. Allowing illegal substances to become legal will stop a lot of crime, and at the same time it will create an economical boost for our country. They say it’s not illegal if you don’t get caught. Whether if its allowed or not, the action of substance usage won’t stop in the U.S. and the government knows it. So, “why not make it legal and profit from it?” is what capitalist countries probably ask themselves. The prohibition in a way is what allowed for other substances to be allowed by the government and until this day it’s just another work in progress for them.